During the first months of President Donald Trump's administration, when the new tariffs were first discussed, several comments and videos circulated in the United States debating who should bear the cost of these taxes. Most people believed it was foreigners who paid them. However, the general conclusion was that the real payer was the American consumer, since importers purchased products on FOB or CIF terms and then assumed payment of the tariff, transferring that cost to the final market price. This is, indeed, the usual logic of international trade. However, when it comes to perishable agricultural products exported under the free consignment system—as is the case with most fresh fruit shipments to the United States—that logic breaks down. In these cases, the popular perception in the United States that the foreigner is the one who pays the tariff ends up being true, since it is the exporter who directly absorbs that cost.

Since early April, agricultural exporters who shipped products to the United States began receiving settlements in which, in addition to the usual expenses—such as freight, handling, refrigeration services, domestic transportation, and commissions—they are also deducted 10% of the CIF value corresponding to the import tariff. This new charge directly impacts the final FOB value they receive, jeopardizing business profitability. This situation is forcing exporters to reevaluate their commercial decisions, more carefully analyze the evolution of destination prices, and urgently consider diversifying into other markets that offer better tariff conditions.

The Peruvian blueberry export campaign will begin in the coming days, and it is important for industry stakeholders to keep in mind that this 10% tariff is in effect and, under the free consignment system, will be fully absorbed by the exporter. If the market does not offer prices high enough to cover this additional cost, margins will be severely compromised, generating a direct loss of profitability.
Faced with this scenario, the only way to ensure a minimum profitability base—beyond any diplomatic efforts governments may make with the United States to exclude certain products from paying tariffs—is for exporters themselves to negotiate different sales conditions with their counterparts. This could entail abandoning free consignment and seeking more predictable schemes, such as agreements with guaranteed minimum prices or programs with supermarkets where firm prices are agreed upon. Although these types of agreements are less common in the US market, which has historically favored free consignment for the import of perishable products, the current context requires a rethinking of the rules of the game.

The United States will continue to be a key market for Peruvian agricultural products, but relying exclusively on it—and under conditions that do not cover all costs—could become a threat to the sustainability of the agro-export business.
Drawing on our legal experience in the agricultural sector, and particularly in international fruit and vegetable trade, we have assisted producers and exporters in structuring their commercial relationships, helping them anticipate risks, negotiate more balanced conditions, and adapt to changing regulatory environments. In a context where factors such as tariffs can disrupt business profitability, having specialized advice is key to making informed strategic decisions.

Matías Araya Varela, Founding Partner of Araya & Cía.